Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

profile_health

Read-only

Audit a Google Business Profile for missing or weak fields. Returns a completeness score, flagged gaps, and specific recommendations to improve local search visibility.

Instructions

Audits what's missing or weak on a Google Business Profile. Returns completeness_score (0-100), missing_fields, incomplete_fields, and specific recommendations. For the raw profile fields without scoring, business_profile returns them directly. Costs 5 credits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "business_name": "<business_name>",
      "location": "<location>"
    },
    "name": "profile_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`location`	Yes	City and state
`place_id`	No	Google Place ID for exact match
`business_name`	Yes	Business name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`qa_count`	Yes
`verified`	Yes
`photos_count`	Yes
`missing_fields`	Yes
`posts_last_30d`	Yes
`recommendations`	Yes
`incomplete_fields`	Yes
`completeness_score`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Oct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "completeness_score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "incomplete_fields": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "missing_fields": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "photos_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "posts_last_30d": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "qa_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "recommendations": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "verified": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "completeness_score",
+    "verified",
+    "photos_count",
+    "qa_count",
+    "posts_last_30d",
+    "missing_fields",
+    "incomplete_fields",
+    "recommendations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Costs 5 credits', which lets an agent weigh the call against cheaper alternatives. It doesn't mention failure modes when the profile isn't found, but the core behavioral info is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the sibling alternative, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values — yet it still names the key outputs. Combined with the credit cost and the explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (location, place_id, business_name). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema — its mention of return fields is separate — so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audits what's missing or weak on a Google Business Profile.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'business_profile', which returns raw fields without scoring, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states the condition that selects this tool (getting a scored completeness audit) and names the alternative (business_profile) for raw fields. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use the tool (e.g., for Bing/Apple profiles, or when a profile doesn't exist yet), but the guidance is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.